6. Wind Spills. Think of all the messed-up hairstyles and knocked-over umbrellas! Won’t somebody please think of the umbrellas?!?

7. Don’t forget to mention it’s slowing down the rotation of the earth!

8. Given the same kind of subsidies Big Oil gets (Exxon made record profits last year, We the People still gave Big Oil $10 Billion), wind would be a viable “arrow” in America’s domestic job-creating, clean, renewable energy independence “quiver.” And that’s not to mention “the massive f*cking negative externalitiescaused by mining and burning coal,” which if taken into account make wind far more attractive. Another note on subsidies: “Imagine nuclear power having to compete with other energy sources without gigantic government research, subsidies and investment. Things don’t come out of nothing.”

9. As for accidents (fatalities), when compared to digging coal, and drilling for oil, how do the numbers compare?

Comments

33528815 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.elephantjournal.com%2F2012%2F05%2F10-reasons-wind-power-is-not-a-plausible-fracking-alternative-to-oil-or-gas%2F10+Reasons+Wind+Power+is+not+a+Plausible+Fracking+Alternative+to+Oil+or+Gas.2012-05-11+16%3A33%3A30Waylon+Lewishttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.elephantjournal.com%2F%3Fp%3D335288 to “10 Reasons Wind Power is not a Plausible Fracking Alternative to Oil or Gas.”

You forgot that wind farms cause cancer in people who live near them, and that it takes more energy to build and place a windmill than it will produce in it’s lifetime, and the recent studies linking wind power to . . . wait for it. . .

Climate Change.

(all you have to do is google wind energy linked to climate change, or some such, and you will find several articles)

How much energy does it cost to build, ship, and install an energy producing machine? Mr. S says a windmill will give you back only as much energy as it takes to build it in the first place. Which, of course, means building it is meaningless.

Is this true? I hop on the net to check.

According to "Green Home Source," it takes 6-15 years to pay back a small energy system; 15-30 years to pay back a large system (even with the subsidies that Green Home tells us about). Seeing as how the economic cost is likely a fairly good approximation of the energy cost, and seeing as how it takes quite a long time to pay it back, Mr S's assertion would seem to at least be in the ballpark.

Rather than MORE subsidies, as this article proposes, how about fewer? Toss out crony capitalism (loved by both Ele liberals and oil conservatives) and let all energy sources compete on their own. No govt help for oil, gas, nuclear, wind, or solar. Let the price of energy rise (or fall) to market levels which, if they are high, will incentivize the cleanest source of all: conservation.

Admttedly, the Climate Change one was a bit of a red herring. I have yet to be convinced by that particular theory.
But here is the point. It is important.
Once we begin to self-identify with a particular group, environmentalist, Republican, Democrat, Buddhist(as anathema to the point as that can be, it happens all the time)
it is very easy to stop thinking critically about the individual issues and situations that arise.
We begin to take on the mindset of the group.
So when an ‘alternative’ energy is put forward we cheer for it.
Anyone critical is anti-earth.
So we wind up with pointless wind farms, ethanol subsidies and a bunch of things that do not further the true cause.
Take for example, aluminum recycling. It uses more energy than mining aluminum. (Plastic does much better)
We must not fall victim to group think,or the us and them mentality. This is what caused the anti-war movement to disappear when Obama was elected.
The anti-war team(group) was in charge, so it no longer mattered if the wars actually ended.
We must be more critical of the actual results of policies and act accordingly.
Elephant unfortunately is a huge hometown for group think, yet it is clear that the readers very genuinely care about the world.
That is why I keep coming back, while we often disagree, we are on the same effin team.

Mr. S, every line is so good! Oz has been talking recently, here and there, about groupthink, too. Well, can't be helped. it's the way of the species. And much as 'they' (the majority here) might doubt it, 'we' (the skeptical but respectful minority) keep coming back because we ARE on the same effin team. And all y'all in-the-majority people out there, you are such nice people!! But still I suggest you take a think on each of Mr. S's non party line points here.

I’m distressed this remark could be far out of relevance, however my wife busted our other machine (I know.), I’m looking for a laptop computer maintenance business that is professional in Palm Beach County.The previous service provider I used took a piece of my hardware, so I need one who is properly known.I was really searching and stumbled upon this provider. Perhaps someone following has had an past experience or can point me to one like this? It’s known as A Plus Computer Support 2300 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. #101 West Palm Beach, FL, 33409 (561) 283-4034. Thanks for the assistance!

[…] how they manage their waste. If we look at how America manages its waste (plastic, paper, nuclear, fracking fluids, agricultural nitrogen, etc.) it might easily be said that the great American civilization (the […]

Why doesn't the number one drawback tell you wind is a crappy form of energy? Oh, fine lets invest millions in an energy source which either pays for itself slowly or not at all.

Instead of investing in wind turbines, we should invest in molten salt reactors. These produce only about 2% as much waste as light water reactors. This waste is thousands of times less radioactive than that produced by light water reactors. A type of molten salt reactor called the waste annihilating molten salt reactor can be fueled by the waste produced by light water reactors and as its name suggests. it destroys much of this waste. Because the fuel in a molten salt reactor is all ready molten, a meltdown is impossible. These types of reactors don't need active cooling because they operate at high temperatures yet low vapor pressures.

Wind turbines have pathetic outputs of up to 7 megawatts a piece. Nuclear power plants can be 1+ gigawatt a piece in terms of power output. What's more is, nuclear fuels are one million times as energy dense and fossil fuels.

1. The fact that wind turbines sometimes don't spin even during windy conditions.
2. The fact that if the wind blows too fast, it will destroy a wind turbine.
3. The fact rare earth metal are used to make wind turbines (and they aren't renewable).
4. The fact that wind turbines have pathetic energy density.